Steve Jobs writes about Apple's efforts to become a more enironmental friendly company. "Apple has been criticized by some environmental organizations for not being a leader in removing toxic chemicals from its new products, and for not aggressively or properly recycling its old products. Upon investigating Apple's current practices and progress towards these goals, I was surprised to learn that in many cases Apple is ahead of, or will soon be ahead of, most of its competitors in these areas. Whatever other improvements we need to make, it is certainly clear that we have failed to communicate the things that we are doing well." Among other things, Apple will introduce LEDs in displays to Macs this year.

I'm sorry but I have to rant.
I really hate how the word "green" is misused so badly. The human race is deluded.

People think that by buying something "green" they are saving the environment. You are not. You are just damaging it a tiny, tiny bit less. A green car, still emits CO2. An electric car still has to be powered by a power station burning coal/wood. A green computer still does massive damage to the environment in the energy the company burns and the energy you burn with it over its lifetime.

Because green is the big new marketing buzz, the marketers are using it with very little understanding, and it should be stopped. The greenest thing you can do is to not buy a computer at all. The greenest car you can buy is none at all, or a bicyle.

A green car, still emits CO2. An electric car still has to be powered by a power station burning coal/wood.

Not necessarily. Most of the power in my neck of the woods (Souteast PA) comes from nuclear and a little from wind. Who knows, maybe my electric car is being charged by a big solar array in my back yard.

A little improvement is good, but dellusional belief of buying something, anything, because it's "greener" is fundamentally backwards.

I have seen adverts from the main gas and electric supplier in England, saying that they have the lowest CO2 emmissions out of their competitiors. That is meaningless diatribe, because as a gas and electric supplier, they burn hundreds of tonnes of fosil fuels everyday, they supply electricity to millions of homes powering TVs on standby. They may emmit less CO2, but that's still relative to the incredible amount they pump out. It's entirely misleading information, false advertising at best, and doesn't tackle the actual problem of the energy we are burning having TVs on standby with legislation to use 0-draw stand-by modes still years away.

Madness, utter madness. We're screwed. The human race is doomed by mankind's fantastic ability to delude itself. Yesterday I heard a fact that by the age of 2, we (in the UK) will have been responsible for more carbon emissions than an asian in their whole lifetime.

Oh don't get me wrong; I think what Apple are doing is great. But I'm pointing out that consumers shouldn't think that because something is labelled "green" that they are saving the planet. They are not, instead mearly damaging it less.

Yesterday I heard a fact that by the age of 2, we (in the UK) will have been responsible for more carbon emissions than an asian in their whole lifetime.

Yep. And most of those Asians would gladly give away the pride of their small environmental footprint in exchange for the living standard of an Englishman.

Please stop your luddite ranting. You are also probably the kind of person who will blame the West for the poverty of those Asians and expect the West to make that poverty go away. The poverty that is the main cause of their small environmental footprint. Which is it??? Seems that you would like developed countries to NOT eat their cake AND NOT have it, either.

Start acting like you really believe what you are saying. Live off the grid.

No not just off the grid, you need to live without consuming any manufactured goods or argricultural products harvested with manufactured goods such as threshing machines, tractors or even a simple blade. Seriously how much pollution goes into the production of every day gardening tools used by the so-called organic farmers?

You need to raise all your own food and make all your own tools out of wood and stone. Arg! Wait if you did that you would have to pull vegetation out of some small plot of land and plant your own vegetation and that would disrupt the natural order of that plot of land. So instead you can only gather wild berries and nuts and maybe the occasional fruit from a tree. But don't deprive any other animals or insects from those things because that would also have an unnatural and negative impact on the environment.

Very Little. Mining requires only a bit of energy compared to what is produced. This is not oil drilling.

Though I agree with you point (no electricity is the greenest), Nuclear is much better than the common coal aand oil burning plants. Also, a nuclear plant releases less radiation into the environment than a coal plant!

"In a case study in Germany, the Oko-Institute determined that 34 grams of CO2 are emitted per generated kilowatt (kWh). Other international research studies show much higher figures (up to 60 grams of CO2 per kWh). In comparison to renewable energy, energy generated from nuclear power releases 4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced, taking into account the entire nuclear fuel cycle."

If only everyone had your amazing telepathic abilities we could drastically cut down on power consumption. After all I assume you posted this without the aide of some sort of manufactured electrical device.

Most of the power in my neck of the woods (Souteast PA) comes from nuclear and a little from wind.

I hope you don't think that nuclear power is environment-friendly. Because it's not. When the nuclear fuel has to be disposed off, eventually, it's one of the most harmful things ever encountered in nature.

Energy emission and consumption, in most forms, is actually what hurts the environment. No matter how "green" the method you obtain that energy, you end up releasing heat, which in turn contributes to the global warming and screwes up everything. Ecology is a closed system, everything ties to everything else.

It's about balance. I own computers, some of which I have gotten from colleges and companies that would have scrapped them right into the local land fills. I do not drive, I use a rather minimal amount of paper, etc.

I do not pretend that I do not pollute the world in my own way, everyone does, but I do hope that by living a certain way I am keeping a certain balancing act going that keeps me polluting the world a little less.

Does that little bit mean much? Maybe not, that one drop in the ocean usually doesn't, but if millions of us try to do it, we start to make a difference.

So, i understand your rant, Green has become as much a buzzword as buying trinkets has become charity, but we can hope to inspire people to make their little difference here and there, and what's wrong with that?

"but if millions of us try to do it, we start to make a difference. "
Indeed, we do, but at the end of the day we just pollute less. We don't reverse the incredible damage we've done to the planet.

Just as we've been discussing this, another couple of acres of rainforest has disappeared. Another 6 species of animal or plantlife has just been made extinct. The cure for cancer could just have been wiped out in the last 10 minutes, and we wouldn't know about it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that the way the human race is now, it's a downard hill with no way of going back.

"but if millions of us try to do it, we start to make a difference. "
Indeed, we do, but at the end of the day we just pollute less. We don't reverse the incredible damage we've done to the planet.

Look, no one is going to convince everyone in the world to stop using electricity and we don't need to do that to correct the CO2 problem. Volcanoes and other natural phenomena dump huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and have been doing that for billions of years without a problem. CO2 isn't a problem itself, too much of it is. When you say we "pollute less" then that is a good thing as long as our CO2 emissions do not exceed what mother earth (including the human race and other species) can bear. Despite what you believe some symptoms of massive CO2 emissions can be reversed like global warming. It's not all doom and gloom yet, but it will be if we don't start doing something now, like being greener. Every little bit helps.

So let me get this straight: you would have the whole world stop buying computers, stop driving cars, stop, in effect, using energy that comes from a power plant.

Um, no.

Look, I'm all for people driving less (I don't own a car) and getting off their fat arses to carry their own weight for a while. And I'm all for finding alternatives to energy sources that we know are doing damage to our environment. But the fact is, our society *depends* on the things you would have us give up. There exists this idea of sustainable living--and I believe these "green" products play to this idea--wherein we acknowledge that we don't want to stop our society, but rather change our behavior enough that the impact we have on our environment is mitigated, and ideally eliminated, by the methods of conservation that we adopt.

Now, given that, would you rather fight for a society that doesn't burn fuel (ain't gonna happen), or fight for a society that makes conscientious decisions about what it does with the energy the burnt fuel provides, with the goal of finding ways to affect positive change that balances out the harm we're doing? I for one applaud any company that recognizes the importance of gradual--and voluntary!--adoption of cleaner practices.

* The oil industry actively prevents innovation in alternative power sources.
* America consumes 75% of the worlds resources for 12% of the landmass.
* Americans also pay the least amount of tax on gas. If gas cost $7.36 per gallon, like it does here in the UK (1 litre = ~£1) there would be riots in the street. The economy would collapse
* America would not work with the Kyoto agreement
* American cars are consitently less fuel efficient than cars of any other country
* American corporate greed actively prevents innovation in less environmentally damaging technologies and products. Europe has been one of the leaders, including the fridge eating machine, better designed housing / materials and construction processes.

* Americans also pay the least amount of tax on gas. If gas cost $7.36 per gallon, like it does here in the UK (1 litre = ~£1) there would be riots in the street. The economy would collapse
The economy AND our government (for failing to do anything about the American Worker). When gas hit $3 per gallon people were calling out for the strategic petroleum reserve to be tapped.

* America would not work with the Kyoto agreement
This has to change. Hopefully with the next election, it will.

* American cars are consistently less fuel efficient than cars of any other country
Few things make me laugh and cry at the same time quite like the 'gas card' incentives GM and Ford were trying to roll out a while back, to entice people to buy their same gigantic gas-guzzling cars during the "OMG $3" gas crisis. I find it hard to believe the desire for more fuel-efficient cars caught them THAT off guard that they didn't have anything decently efficient to promote.

No comment on the others...

I think what you've managed to nail is the difference between "good" and "less bad" (and equivalently, the difference between "better" and "good").

For someone who's definitely going to buy a new computer anyway, greener is better, and Apple is to be commended. At least, as long as Steve Jobs didn't leave out a huge list of other nasty chemicals that Apple refuses to dump but that Dell has...

So what you are saying is that America is the cause of all the worlds problems. Give me a break. There is corruption in all governments in all countries.

If you don't like my country, fine, but please use your brain on this one. If you want socialism, great, but it doesn't work. If you want communism and feel that all people are equal, great, but it also does not work. Think USSR, China, Cuba (great health care...oh wait NOT) and soon Venezuela.

My suggestion before you open your mouth again and rail against the US. Clean up your own backyard first then come talk to me!

If you want communism and feel that all people are equal, great, but it also does not work.

That's why all the REDS have turned GREEN. The red-religion failed, now the new religion is the Green-religion. And if you don't agree with their latest thesis (global warming created by humans) you will be shot!

Global warming is indeed not created by humans. It's the solar system position in the galaxy that controls Earth temperature via the amounts of clouds.

That's why all the REDS have turned GREEN. The red-religion failed, now the new religion is the Green-religion. And if you don't agree with their latest thesis (global warming created by humans) you will be shot!

I don't know where the tie up between communism and the environmental movement is, but I can assure you that having been involved with the environmental movement, not everyone is a Trotskite or Marxist - I'm a libertarian, but at the same time I work towards not forced conservation, but people choosing to do the right thing.

The issue with global warming; it isn't debated about whether it is actually happening - because the statistics point to that very fact. The issue is how much of it is due to human interaction.

This is where things get funky; the issue which people on the deluded side forget is this; we're not saying that there isn't natural climate variation (which is what the article you pointed to is trying to claim), what we debate is the fact that human interaction has made that natural climate variation a lot more extreme had it not been for the our roll in the cycle.

Yes, the climate would have changed, but not at the extremes of which we're seeing now - and due to the lag between the event and natures catching up to those changes, we're seeing it have disastrous consequences in terms of animal species and impact on those in the third world.

We all need to clean up but if you really want to keep the pressure on you'd best tactically switch your attention to China, India and Brazil: the US, as is Europe, is inhabited to a great extent by a culturally post-industrial population - the *current* US Administration will soon seem like a lot of neutered pussycats once the Chinese dragon starts to dig its heels in over carbon emissions (and then ask yourself where a lot of PC equipment is now produced these days)

Its not just America, most of the developed world is the same. True, fuel costs less in America, but that doesn't stop people in the UK or France for example, driving down to the shops in a 4x4 vehicle, or buying a petrol guzzling people carrier for one person.

I doubt society will ever change, because 99% of people don't care, because it won't effect them.

Following your logic the ultimate green solution would be to nuke the entire human population.

The environment is naturally able to dispose our waste at a certain rate. It's when we are producing the waste at higher rate than the nature is able to dispose of it then it becomes a problem. The CO2 on it's own is not a problem, every living thing is exhaling it. It's when CO2 is continuously produced in huge amounts then it becomes "bad", or so they say.

The goal of the green movement is to try establishing an equilibrium with nature by cutting down the rate of waste production. It's basically about efficiency.

Having said that I feel that CO2 production is receiving way too much attention compared to the production and use or other much more dangerous pollutants. Also, seeing the amount of disposable items used and thrown into garbage daily simply p@#$%s me off.

"Following your logic the ultimate green solution would be to nuke the entire human population. "

To which my reply,

“On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.” Charles Babbage

Which extremes exactly? Are you referring to those words: "The greenest thing you can do is to not buy a computer at all. The greenest car you can buy is none at all, or a bicyle."? If that is the case then yes, I did fail to interpret it as an extreme because to me it did sound like he was seriously suggesting it.

"Clearly you missed it."

Clearly, I did. What exactly was the point? That instead of trying to create more efficient computers and cars we should abandon them altogether, along with all other achievements of the civilization? Bicycling btw, is not perfectly green either. Think of all the metal, rubber, paint and lubricants that were used during the manufacturing of that bike.

Do you realize that any living organism's activity is inherently damaging to it's environment and requires some other organisms activity to counter it? If there were no animals to convert oxygen to carbon dioxide by means of breathing then the level of oxygen would rise dangerously high, resulting in massive wildfires killing the very plants the produced it.

So, what exactly was the point? Perhaps you should enlighten me.

And btw, when I said "Following your logic the ultimate green solution would be to nuke the entire human population." I was using an extreme to make a point, the point that I spelled out right afterwards and which YOU clearly missed.

People think that by buying something "green" they are saving the environment. You are not. You are just damaging it a tiny, tiny bit less. A green car, still emits CO2. An electric car still has to be powered by a power station burning coal/wood. A green computer still does massive damage to the environment in the energy the company burns and the energy you burn with it over its lifetime.

Actually, an electric car, given that scenario, is actually worse for the environment when you take into account the inefficiencies of large scale power generation and distribution.

In Australia a couple of years ago, Melbourne university boffins did a study on the exact scenario, but using electric trams and bus's; the conclusion reached was that it was more environmentally friendly to just use a diesel bus than the so-called 'green technology'.

Ultimately, as a leading UK environmentalist said about wind farms - it is a nice big project that politicians love to have their name associated with and appear to have some degree of "look what we're doing" when in reality, it doesn't take the full life cycle into account.

Take Nuclear, which is being touted as a 'green' replacement for large scale electricity generation - but what it doesn't take into account is the amount of petrochemicals and emissions given off in the process of mining the Uranium and then from there enrich it for use as fuel - that doesn't taken into account the issue of long term power generation, maintenance of both the station and storage of reprocessing and waste management.

Even so-called 'green' power such as wind power completely ignores the amount of CO2 emitted during the production process of the wind farm itself - infact the last article I read on the matter stated that it would be very optimistic if the amount of CO2 emissions saved were actually met by the amount put out during product.

I find it funny people wanting high tech, visibly noticeable, grand projects to some how say, "hey, look, we're trying!" when in reality there are much simpler ways of saving the environment.

How about this, don't take a car to work, take a bus or some form of public transport, walk and bike rather than taking the car on the weekend, don't have your house lit up like a Christmas tree, don't have your house so warm that its like sitting in a sauna - yes, I've actually been in house that are so warm you could walk around in a g-string and still find it too warm.

Couple that with the 'its someone elses responsibility to cut their emissions' - humanity is ultimately going to kill itself in this age of 'caring for the environment' because no one takes responsibility for their own choices let alone looks at responses to the environmental issues in a responsible way - that is, properly analysing all the facts relating to the so-called 'green technology'.

Dude... All of our progressive efforts to save the environment are nothing more than damaging it less. Anything else is just fixing past mistakes, and that's not something any consumer can hope to significantly participate in.

While I'm all for this avoidance of harmful chemicals and such I'd be a much bigger fan of consumers taking some responsibility and disposing of things properly. We have an entire generation who seems to think it's ok to just pile trash near the city.

Power consumption of a computer is a red herring. Consider the power it takes to produce a new one. Start with mining for silicon, aluminum, lead and all the other materials you need to even think about manufacturing the individual parts.

I can buy a good, last-gen PC laptop (Acer Aspire 5570 Core Solo 1.86Ghz) for less money than a Mac mini. And you still need to add a monitor to the mini. Better to compare the iMac to entry-level PCs.

try to find a PC that needs 22W per hour when idle and 33W with 100% CPU stress. (<- Mac Mini).

You do realize that Apple's computer hardware is largely bog-standard, off-the-shelf PC stuff these days, right? I know it's a popular notion that Apple hardware has some special, magical quality that makes it "better" than PC hardware - but that's a nonsensical argument today when Apple hardware effectively *is* PC hardware (and they were steadily moving in that direction for the last 10 years or so).

I don't:
- drive nor own a car;
- fly unless I really really have to;
- own a powerful desktop computer nor an (ever running) old PC as my home server;
- burn things for fun
- eat a lot of meat and non-local products;
- own a home theatre system and/or gaming console.

I have/do;
- Invested in home insulation and recently in a new energy efficient central heating system;
- go to work using a bike (80%) or train (19,5%)
- use low-power fluorescent light bulbs in my house;

It really doesn't amount to much of anything. Carbon emissions are still eroding the ozone layer at a faster rate than will matter if Steve Jobs "goes green". I'd believe that people were serious about the environment if they ditched their gas-hogging SUVs and Jobs stopped flying on his private jet.

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. If you think human activity doesn't at least make global warming worse, then you must not be very well-informed.

The facts are that you don't know. There are no proofs. Current opinions are based on "faith" & likely-hood, not 100% proofs. If humans do contribute to some global warming, which might not be unlikely, the question is really, how much ? And, can a natural global warming then not act as a "self-regulating mechanism" for humans that automatically reduces human created CO2 as we all can turn the heat off a little bit and cut down on fossil fuel.

If we are heading into a warmer period, it will certainly not be the first global warming period in Earths history. Some evidence suggest that humans are indeed a result of a global warming period.

It's not a matter of LED vs. LCD. It's Fluorescent vs. LED backlighting. The LCD is still there, but because the Flourescent light source is gone, so is the mercury.

It's not just Apple trying to do this, Hewlett-Packard/Compaq is about ready to introduce the new displays, also.

The strange thing about this kind of change is that California recently passed a law to rid the state of incandescent light bulbs, in favour of fluorescent bulbs. It helps by lowering power consumption but adds a huge amount of mercury to the environment.

There is no perfect solution but to use less energy and/or find safer sources of power. I'd hate to live without electronics but I could certainly live without SUVs.

What do we do with the Nuclear WASTE, when it's spent, to provide us our electricity...

No, if we want to do things right, here in America (as well as abroad), we need to do the following:

1) Ride bikes (I'm 38 and never learned to drive... I think it's paying off now, especially in savings of money towards gas as well as pollution)

2) Walk when it's a short enough distance (or even the full distance you'd ride on a bike, if you're feeling particularly adventurous and energetic). Here in Sierra Vista, AZ we have a main street called Fry Blvd. and my brother and I walked all the way from 7th St. & Fry, to 92nd & Fry (to where WalMart is). Other than my feet hurting like crazy later, it was a great walk and fun!

3) Install solar panels, florescent lighting, and solar lighting (those sunlight refractor things; we have two of them in our house) and possibly a small windmill in your back yard. Attach the solar panels and windmill to a battery bank.

4) Wear warm clothing in winter instead of turning your thermostat up. Bundle up at night under lots of covers.

5) Stop water leaks. Plug up air gaps. Insulate your house. Only turn lights on when you need them. Only open the fridge/freezer when you NEED something (don't browse). Use drip tubing for watering plants. Buy live houseplants to add more oxygen to your household air. And...

6) Build a recumbant electricity-generating bicycle, that you can pedal while watching TV or using your computer...

Well I hate to interrupt here with some reality, but some of us have to go to work. If we want to keep our jobs we also have to be there on time, every time. Vehicles are a necessity. But hey, I'm willing to give this newfangled hippie walk-everywhere thing a chance. Just convince my 2 and 3 year old daughters and my wife that we all have to walk 12 miles, one way to the grocery store this weekend and 12 miles back with all the bags.

Also screw your idea about freezing my ass off in the winter. I work damn hard to pay my house payment and bills and there's no way I'm sitting around in the cold when there's a perfectly good heater there.

Well I hate to interrupt here with some reality, but some of us have to go to work. If we want to keep our jobs we also have to be there on time, every time. Vehicles are a necessity.

But you choose to live out in the 'suburbs' where there are no public transport - whose to blame for that? whose to blame for public transport not being out there? wouldn't it be best to talk to your local MP and get a movement together to expand the bus and train network out to where you live?

But hey, I'm willing to give this newfangled hippie walk-everywhere thing a chance. Just convince my 2 and 3 year old daughters and my wife that we all have to walk 12 miles, one way to the grocery store this weekend and 12 miles back with all the bags.

Well, you could do what I do; I ride around the same distance to the shops on my bike, I pick up my weeks worth of groceries, do a precarious balancing act with some of the stuff in my back pack along with some in those 'reusable' bags - and ride back home no problems; if I need to get more, or its raining, I just take the bus.

Also screw your idea about freezing my ass off in the winter. I work damn hard to pay my house payment and bills and there's no way I'm sitting around in the cold when there's a perfectly good heater there.

Nobody here said that you must live like some sort of pious puritan, sitting there cold and miserable. Its about realising how much energy you use.

Do you *really* need to have the house so warm that you can walk around in a t-shirt? for me, my power bill is around $100 per month during the winter - want to know why it is so low?

My electricity is low because firstly I don't feel the need to have my house as some sort of boasting factor by owning something that is bigger than what I actually require, and secondly, I don't think that I should be lining the pockets of Contact Energy executives and shareholders by slovenly wasting energy by having my house heated up as if it were some sort of sauna.

If we want to keep our jobs we also have to be there on time, every time. Vehicles are a necessity. But hey, I'm willing to give this newfangled hippie walk-everywhere thing a chance.

He did specifically mention bicycles too. And I don't know where you live, but in this city it's often faster to get around by bicycle - and it's almost always easier to find parking downtown for a bicycle.

Your argument also presents a false dichotomy - pardon me for stating the obvious, but it is possible to make use of more than just a single method of transportation. I personally both own a bicycle and have access to a company vehicle - it's pretty easy to decide which is the appropriate one to use, based on the pragmatic requirements of the situation. I use the car when it makes more sense than biking and vice-versa - and sometimes it makes the most sense to use both. E.g., if I'm going somewhere that I know has lousy parking, then it's easiest to just toss the bike in the trunk and park a few blocks away where it's easier to find space.

Also screw your idea about freezing my ass off in the winter. I work damn hard to pay my house payment and bills and there's no way I'm sitting around in the cold when there's a perfectly good heater there.

I didn't get the impression that the original poster was suggesting people ought to completely eschew electric/gas heat. But it's certainly possible to use those things within reason - if anything, I find it's more convenient to put on a sweater than to wait for my heaters to bring the temperature up.

Just convince my 2 and 3 year old daughters and my wife that we all have to walk 12 miles, one way to the grocery store this weekend and 12 miles back with all the bags.

You're thinking inside the box of a motorized livestyle. I've gone car-less for ten months after moving close to a nice local downtown area full of family shops and small businesses, one of which had my job location. You don't go on mass grocery trips and haul a big load home. You buy a little along the way every day. Now, this means you have to make deliberate lifestyle decisions, but why is the cost of a car, gas, maintenance, insurance, and repair for the privilege of commuting through traffic important to you?

Oh, my! This IS bad! I mean... we exhale CO2! And every living creature on the EARTH exhales C02!

Quick! Everyone... STOP BREATHING! Duct tape your mouth and nose, so no CO2 escapes! Tape your pet's mouth and nose. And if you have any cattle, stuff a cork up their butt to prevent any farts from escaping... I hear Methane is pretty bad for the environment, too!

I don't think we have much to worry about, in the ocean, because something is killing all the fish and other air breathing mammals in different places, so they're not breathing...

Bees are dying off pretty rapidly, so we're probably safe there as well...

Go and buy up all the plants you can and fill your house and front yard with them... WE MUST INCREASE OXYGEN OUTPUT!!!

If we all do this, across the globe... right this very instant... I think we can SAVE the earth!!!

... hmm... um... how long have I not been breathing? I'm getting a little light headed and...

They made it clear, regarding Nuclear Power, that in order to leverage it with today's current power use the world would have to go from roughly 400 - 500 Nuclear Power Plants to 10,000 to even touch what is today.

China alone increased their power last year by the sum total that all of Great Britain currently consumes.

Increased efficiencies, reduced emissions and anything that is recyclable regarding matter is only a benefit for this planet and any planet wanting to preserve its current ecosystem and even improve upon it.

A lot of this discussion has been on decidedly dodgy pseudo-Malthusian lines, and the real issue is not the planet but people: if you want to be properly serious about all this, take a look at the purely human side:

if anyone has more recent information on this aspect of computer production (since even computers that are environmentally neutral in the end will still be causing misery if the production environment itself is bad for the human beings involved) please share.

There was a general article in yesterday's Independent (UK) on similar lines about the treatment of workers in China by Johann Hiri: We shop until Chinese workers drop (you may be able to get an online version of the piece still by Googling it - but your mileage on access may vary, it just timed out on me).

And as to giving up computers entirely, I recall an Arthur C. Clarke (hardly a technophobe) story about how the re-introduction of the abacus rescued a deep-space crew whose navigation computer had gone awry...maybe there's a real point there somewhere (the short was in the collection 'Of Time and Stars' - I forget the title now, it may have been 'Into the Comet', which rings a faint bell after a quick search).

By the way - and for those who find the subject of green computing interesting - the Silent PC Review people are preparing a new sister site called Eco PC Review: http://www.silentpcreview.com/news737.html
(they are also seeking editors for the new site)

"Eco PC Review (a sister site of SPCR) will examine all the ways in which environmentalism applies to computing. EPCR will have a proactive, user-centric, and practical focus on the ways that the environmental impact of computer proliferation and usage can be minimized. "

I don't quite understand the logic of some people who criticize green computing on the basis that it would usually mean only small irrelevant things compared to some bigger issues. Well, sure there are also many much bigger environmental problems in the world than, say, the material of your PC hardware. And sure green computing may also be a PR trick for companies like Apple. But small steps forward do matter too. All the small things together become much bigger things easily.

Why should we, say, let our kids freely throw carbage around them, just because small carbaging is only "such a small problem". Carbage and pollution is carbage and pollution even in small quantities. And also negative things cumulate into bigger problems easily if not taken care of.

Green computing and industry is also related to general politics and trends, nationally and globally. Small steps forward make people notice also the bigger issues better too, gradually, and then, though maybe only slowly first, also the more negligent politicians, companies and governments may be globally forced to follow better politics also in those bigger issues. That has already happened in many matters - it is gradual positive development.

Also small things matter. And it matters whether companies and others are either actively lobbying for or against positive environmental (and other, like social) goals and politics.

It's a sign from consumers that we want environmentally friendly solutions when we buy products that are commonly considered "green."

If you don't think big corporations are noticing than you haven't been watching tv; watch for "General Electrics" ads. Sure, they're probably lying through their teeth in the commercial and that's our fault if we believe them. But that's not a failure to communicate our wishes, that's us failing to be critical of advertising and corporate actions: A different problem.

If you want to criticize consumers for doing what they can to make things better then please do it elsewhere. I don't want to listen to your off topic drivel about how megalomania-mart is doing more damage than you are good: We can't solve all problems with one solution.

It's like slapping someone on the hand for calling 911 instead of giving CPR. They could have just walked away.

Surely the biggest problem we have is the human population and people who insist on having large families, (i.e. more than 2 kids). Most modern families, at least in developed areas consume large amounts of energy. Where I live, I notice families with 3 or 4 cars, one per household member. Children these days want expensive, electronic toys, to keep up with their friends, they want computers. They have a TV in every bedroom in the house, normally left on standby (The ability of which should be simply removed from future television sets).

Then comes the food to feed them, a trip down to the supermarket in the family car to fill up on the groceries. Groceries which are unnecessarily over-packaged, then the costs to cook food, wash clothes, have six baths a day, etc..

Then you get people who insist on driving petrol-guzzling 4 wheel drives, or people carriers, just to take the kid to school. The only off-road most of these people do is driving up their driveways.

People who choose to live their lives like this, breeding and guzzling fuel should be punished/heavily taxed. Why should people who drive small cars have to pay as much tax on fuel as people who drive large, expensive, unnecessary cars.

It's about time people realized that life is not going to stay this easy, especially for future generations.

What I don't understand is why more people don't buy computers based on chips like VIA's C3 and C7. When I build a computer, thats all I use. The C7 may only run at 1.5GHz, but thats plenty for and average desktop. RoHS compliance goes a long way to dumping less toxic junk into the earth, but it doesn't solve everything. Dell now sells computers that are 'RoHS Compliant' but still consume 150-200Wh w/o monitor. The computers I build, that are based on the VIA C7 consume about 36Wh. Also the VIA C7 is the marketed as the worlds first Carbon-Free CPU. Excerpt from VIA's page:

World's First Carbon Free Processor

The VIA C7®-D processor is the world's first Carbon Free computer component, helping individuals and organizations reduce their Carbon Footprint. For every VIA C7-D processor sold VIA works with environmental experts to calculate the electricity used over the processors lifetime (assumed to be 3 years). Then from the amount of electricity used, VIA calculates how much CO2 emissions will be released into the environment mainly as a result of fossil fuel burning power plants, and then works with regional offset organizations to "offset" that amount of CO2 through projects such as:

* Reforestation: Planting trees in different areas around the world that absorb (or sequester) CO2 as they grow.
* Alternative Energy: By promoting alternative energy such as Solar power, power plants don't need to burn as much fossil fuels reducing the amount of CO2 released into the environment.
* Energy conservation: Efforts to help reduce the amount of energy used, meaning that power plants don't need to burn so much fossil fuels reducing the amount of CO2 released into the environment.

The other issue with computer companies, is that everything the build, is with hardware from the lowest bidder. Things like power supplies that are only 60-70% efficient. If you want to help save the world, but want to still have things like computers, do your research, build your own, and don't be cheap about it. Cheap might save you some money up front, but will cost you more in the end.

it is certainly clear that we have failed to communicate the things that we are doing well.

Heh, now *that* is salesmanship - if you must admit fault, be sure to do it with self-congratulatory spin. Reminds me of people that answer "I'm too much of a perfectionist/work-a-holic" when asked their greatest weakness on a job application.

Having worked with Greenpeace on this campaign, I must say, that I'm very thrilled to see such a result. We can't say for sure, what Apple have been cooking behind closed curtains, but certainly their "Hot News" is a direct response to the Green My Apple campaign, that will make them jump high up the Guide To Greener Electronics chart.

I can see, that there's talk about what's essentially the best thing to do for the environment, and ultimately it would be to stop consuming all kinds of human-made products. Of course that's not gonna happen. There are many things to take into account when choosing which campaign or product design to use, and that always leads to criticism. But when something new happens, we just have to ask ourselves: Was this an improvement? Did it make the world any better? In this case, I'd argue YES, because Apple has joined a new kind of competition, where electronics companies use green-ness as a marketing factor. And I applaud Apple's actions: Facing out flame retardants, PVC, not selling CRT, reducing packaging and such. This will intensify competition in a health- and eco-friendly way.

But of course all this is to be seen in contrast with technological consumption, where people replace their computers and gadgets within very few years. As long as these products aren't made properly reusable, this will remain the largest issue, since production and waste-handling are both energy-consuming and polluting. And that's where Individual Producer Responsibility comes in. I won't elaborate on this, but just mention it as a very excellent economical tool for internalizing these externalities.